NYPD Memos Reveal Disturbing Tactics

Minority Report -- the movie about police officers who arrested criminals before they committed their crimes -- seemed like science fiction. Who knew the New York police would take it seriously?

In five internal reports made public yesterday as part of a lawsuit, New York City police commanders candidly discuss how they had successfully used "proactive arrests," covert surveillance and psychological tactics at political demonstrations in 2002, and recommend that those approaches be employed at future gatherings. Among the most effective strategies, one police captain wrote, was the seizure of demonstrators on Fifth Avenue who were described as "obviously potential rioters."

If we can proactively invade countries we deem "potential threats," we might as well proactively arrest individuals who look like "potential criminals."

Other tactics revealed by the memoranda are equally repulsive:

The reports also made clear what the police have yet to discuss publicly: that the department uses undercover officers to infiltrate political gatherings and monitor behavior.

Indeed, one of the documents -- a draft report from the department's Disorder Control Unit -- proposed in blunt terms the resumption of a covert tactic that had been disavowed by the city and the federal government 30 years earlier. Under the heading of recommendations, the draft suggested, "Utilize undercover officers to distribute misinformation within the crowds."

Once again, it's a crime for you to lie to the police, but just fine for the police to lie to you. It seems NYPD didn't learn from its mistakes:

The power of the police to secretly monitor political gatherings was tightly controlled by a federal court between 1985 and early 2003, the result of a lawsuit by political activists from the 1960's who charged that police undercover officers had disrupted their ability to express their opinions. Many of the restrictions from that case, known as Handschu, were eased at the request of the city in 2003.

The proposal to use undercover officers to spread misinformation -- which the Police Department says was not adopted -- recalled the origins of the Handschu lawsuit, which was based in part on the actions of undercover agents and officers who instigated trouble and spread lies among a group of military veterans who opposed the Vietnam War.

NYPD also thought it would be cool to intimidate protestors with a massive police presence:

Capt. Timothy Hardiman also took note of what he saw as the helpful presence of city corrections buses, which are used to transport prisoners and have reinforced windows, protected by metal grids. "It was useful to have buses with corrections officers on hand," Captain Hardiman wrote. "They also had a powerful psychological effect."

In other words, the police hoped to have a chilling effect on protest. As explained by Daniel Perez, a lawyer representing demonstrators who brought the lawsuit that uncovered the memoranda:

"The message is, if you turn out, be prepared to be arrested, be prepared to be sent away for a long time," he said.

Don't you wish we could depend on law enforcement to be honest, not deceptive? Don't you wish NYPD cared about constitutional niceties like probable cause and freedom of assembly?

Welcome to Republican AMERIKA.........where your son can be sent off to die in Iraq for "freedom" while you could be jailed, harassed, and spied upon here at home while trying to exercise those very same "freedoms"
Bush and Republicans.........the scoundrels who use patriotism as a weapon.

What next, thought crimes?
Officer, if I called you a wanker, what would you do?
I would arrest you.
If I just thought you were a wanker, what would you do?
I couldn't do anything.
That's fine then, 'cause I think you're a wanker.

the NYPD are also eating their own--the NY Policeman's Benevolent Association (union) members who were protesting the city's footdragging on a new contract were themselves the target of the same harrassment:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/nyregion/03police.html?ex=1296622800&en=8b446da60101831c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
also, don't forget the multitudes of harrassment, arrest and illegal confinement that occurred during the Rethuglican convention in 2004...
Amerika: making the world safe for Multinational Commerce!

Will our great grandchildren even be aware of the freedoms that once existed in this country? I wonder sometimes what the place will look and feel like in 50 years.
Speaking of tyranny, I can't wait to see "V for Vendetta".

Agents provocateurs? There've been credible reports in the past three years that police in the United States, and in other countries, have done more than merely infiltrate and spy on "suspect" groups. These reports accuse the police of having used their agents to commit and/or instigate acts of violence in order to justify crack-downs on, and mass arrests of, peaceful demonstrators.

Since "wrong-winger" could be considered a badge of honor in here, I'll take that challenge.
Pro-active arrests: If the arrests are based upon probable cause, and not based on what we think someone will do in the future, then they are legal and beneficial if they help solve a problem. The term proactive in law enforcement means generally means self-initiated, and not a reactive response to a call for service.
Undercover Personnel: If the are utilizing undercover personnel for information and intelligence I have no problem with it. If they are using them as agent provocatuers, then I would take some issue.
So far I haven't seen any information which shows these techniques are unlawful, so if they prevent a protest from evolving into a violent riot or identify persons responsible for violence in what otherwise was intended to be a lawful protest, they are OK in my book. Citizen's have a right to protest, not riot and cause damage to other's private property.

so if they prevent a protest from evolving into a violent riot or identify persons responsible for violence in what otherwise was intended to be a lawful protest

The problem, of course, being that ANY rally, ANY gathering, ANT grouping, ANY protest has the potential to transform into a riot.
That some people support "proactive" (I can't believe they used that word, LMFAO) arrests of people that cops think might commit a crime is IDIOTIC!
Where do you draw the line? A freaking cop looks at someone, says to himself "Holy cow! He may incite a riot, I have nothing to abse that claim on, but if I call it "pro-active" I can arrest him because I may not like the way he looks, and this new policy lets me arrest people for that.
Yeah Patrick, glad to see your endorsement.

Is that what you think it is? Why is it that someone who might agree with something you don't is blindly obedient? Could it be, perhaps, that someone has a different paradigm, experience or political views, which makes something acceptable to them that is not to you? If you are truly representative of the left and their values, and not some whacko who likes to stir up controversy, then I'm glad my values are more aligned with those who oppose you.

Pat...you need cause for an arrest. Probable cause is needed for an investigation.
If the NYPD is making probable cause arrests aka "proactive" arrests...the game's over baby. Freedom lost.
Arrests are "reactive" in nature...a reaction to a crime. A "proactive" arrest can easily be called kidnapping.

Kdog,
An arrest with probable cause is legal. That's all that's required. I already explained that the term pro-actice, in law enforcement, usually means self-initiated, not in response to a complaint or call for service, and not based on what the cops think a person might do in the future. Cops make proactive arrests all the time. An observed drunk driver is an example.

Arrests are "reactive" in nature...a reaction to a crime.

Actually that is not true. Sometimes probable cause exists based on known facts at the time, and an arrest is made. Further investigation reveals that in fact no crime has been committed. The person is then released. At least that's the law in California. 836(3) PC.
The point being that as long as there's probable cause, it's a legal arrest. As long as it's legal and does not violate some department policy, it's OK with me, especially if it reduces public exposure to loss of life, injury or loss of property.

Not to be nitpicking, but reasonable suspicion is all that's needed for a detention or investigative stop. Reasonable suspicion is a lower legel burden than probable cause according to the courts. An investigation can be initiated based on just about any level of suspicion, including a hunch. However, if it's based solely on a hunch, the officer is limited in what steps he/she can take to further the investigation, for example, you can't detail a suspect, you can't access criminal history information etc. As the level of suspicion gets higher (Based on specific articulable facts) the level of intrusion allowed also increases, up to and including arrest.

Mr. Browne also said that the "proactive" arrests referred to in the report -- numbering about 30 -- involved protesters with pipes and masks who he said presented an obvious threat.

I guess you're supposed to wait until the pipe is moving towards somebody's head or property at sufficient speed to cause harm before making the arrest.
Wait, no... it'd have to be moving too fast for them to be able to slow it down below that damaging speed before impact.

Patrick....an OBSERVED DRUNK DRIVER is committing a crime, driving while drunk or at least recklessly enough that they can be stopped. Not stopped because they were dressed up and the officer assumes they must have been to a party, but the officer observes weaving into lanes or running stop signs.
THEN the officer smells alcohol and administers a test. THEN there might be an arrest.
People who think like you do are the ones who stay silent while societies slide into fascism and polic states. Please reconsider giving the police the power to arrest anyone if they just feel like it.

Lilybart,
a vehicle weaving within its lane is not a violation, yet it is suspicion. You're focusing on the wrong point. The point was that there was no report of the crime, the officer made their observations first hand, and not in response to some citizen calling in, that is how the term pro-active is used in law enforcement. That example was used to demonstrate the term as opposed to reactive, not whether or not there was probable cause, or an actual crime being committed, even though in the example cited a crime was being committed.

People who think like you do are the ones who stay silent while societies slide into fascism and polic states. Please reconsider giving the police the power to arrest anyone if they just feel like it.

I'm hardly staying silent, not because I want a facist society, but because I think these arrests and these policies (Based on the information provided in the article) are part of well established law, not some step over a line onto the slippery slope of thought control, and that's what I'm trying to point out. Probable cause has been the standard for many years. Proactive, used in this context, has been around since community policing concepts became popular.

Mr. Perez maintains that the police documents, taken together, show a policy of pre-emptive arrests. The draft report discussed how early arrests could shape future events. "The arrests made at West 59th Street and Fifth Avenue set a 'tone' with the demonstrators and their possible plans at other demonstrations," the report stated.

The goal is to squelch protest.
roy, a bunch of madmen wielding pipes would have been prosecuted. I wouldn't take the NYPD brass spokesman quoted at his word here, he's not going to admit illegal arrests were made, or admit the lengths of the undercover protest group infiltrations.

41 shots. 41 shots. Amidou! Amidou!
Well, if this thread was about amidou, you'd be on topic, but still without a coherent point.

Really? Oh, I don't know. It's been made by me and several others multiple times and clear as a bell and seein' how there's none so blind as those who will not see, methinks the fault lies, dear patrick, not in your stars, but in yourself. And there's none so blind as a shrub-shillin', police-state apologizin', clueless caucasian.

All of this story is hauntingly familiar (thanks Bob) Opening night, Desert Storm in San Francisco, I was with five other people and around twenty visible officers in front of the federal building. We burned candles and wondered why we could hear a pin drop. Within an hour an enormous crowd marched upon us. As soon as the police busses pulled up and the army surrounded us, one stone came out of nowhere and hit dead center the plate glass of the army recruiting center. Thousands of us turned in unison and chanted that person down. The police arrested nearly forty thousand that night. Several piers on the Bay were turned into jails. I was being interviewed live on radio as we were tossed into some paddy wagon. I know in my heart that was orchestated. After that night and for several days after over one hundred thousand were arrested and things really got out of hand. Perhaps it was inevitable, but all who were there know who cast the only stone that night.
The local media barely touched it and of course many know about the corp. media.
The way the police and the media nullified the peaceful action of hundreds of thousands that week, reminds me why we don't assemble except in front of our screens and why the wire tapping will end up here.
Fourteen years ago. Lets do it again !! Candles anyone?

And the NYPD knew in their hearts that a crime was going to be committed. You don't want to allow them that, yet you claim to know the brick was orchestated.
Claims are often in the eye of the beholder.
Patrick - I was on jury duty this week and we heard a DUI case. The DA and Defense walked us right through reasonable suspicion and probable cause and you are spot on.
However the perp refused the BA test, thereby losing his license for a year, even though the booking video tape showed a man that looked sober as a judge. We cut him lose, deciding that the state had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you folks want to worry about Civil Rights, start worrying about administrative rules that will take your license if you won't take a test, instead opting for the judgement of your fellow citizens.
Patrick is also correct in his description of the word "proactive."
I used it for years describing a salesman who recognized a sales possibility as "proactive" and one who merely waited for the customer to buy as "reactive."
et al - From the post:

In other words, the police hoped to have a chilling effect on protest

Since it is the police's job to protect, I would say the police wanted to have a chilling effect on "violent" protest.
It's a fine line, I grant you, but one comes from the other. If you are going to have a "controlled burn" in a national forest I am sure you would want enough rangers there to prevent it from becoming a wild fire.

Ah, yes, the good old days. Some little undercover fbi twerp in a tie-dyed tee-shirt and wing tips starts a fracas or throws a rock that turns a peaceful demonstration into a scuffle and the goons move in to stop a "riot". Cointelpro-the sequel. May 4th is just around the corner. Time to mark the 36th Anniversary of Kent State by gunning down some unarmed people 300 feet away. Happy Days are here again.

Well, edge, johnny. We can proactively bust chaney for his history of shooting people in the face and obstructing justice. There's solid pc. And along with his obvious fraud, obstruction, grand larceny, insider trading, murder, yada, yada, yada, charges, we can still pick him up for buyin' a bag of pretzels. Suicide is still against the law.

Jim, Patrick... Bullsh!t. If you want to lock people up for what you think they may do, just outright say it and get it over with.

Johnny,
I know this is difficult, but that's not what has happened here, despite T-Chris' analogy with Minority Report.

I wouldn't take the NYPD brass spokesman quoted at his word here, he's not going to admit illegal arrests were made, or admit the lengths of the undercover protest group infiltrations.

Kdog,
Mr Perez is hardly a disinterested party. I wouldn't expect him to come out and say the claims are groundless hyperbole. It's a perspective issue and far less sinister than T-Chris would have you believe.
No doubt police presence is a psychological factor. It happens every day. Ever drive different when there's a cop behind you? Same phenomena.

Mr Perez is hardly a disinterested party. I wouldn't expect him to come out and say the claims are groundless hyperbole

You're right Pat. I'd bet the truth lies somewhere in between Mr. Perez's take and the NYPS spokesman take. And that is troubling enough for me.
What is also troubling is that the DA doesn't prosecute any of the so-called crimes that occur during large scale protests. That tells me the protestors, more than likely, haven't committed any crimes and the arrests are simply a form of intimidation to discourage free assembly. In a word....unamerican.

Kdog,
You're from that area, I imaging it's more of a deminimus situation than anything. Certainly no DA's file every case that comes before them (and that doesn not mean the elements of the crime have not been met) and many don't want to give protestors the the spotlight that a criminal trial would allow. It really comes down to a financial decision in most cases. You (as the DA) know these people are going to take everything to trial and file motions and appeals to the nth degree. Why bother for what amounts to a misdemenaor or low level felony. It takes more time to prepare the case than the person would get if convicted, and that's a big if when your talking about these kinds of trials. One person in the jury who has a hidden agenda can railroad even the best prosecution, and certainly there are many people in NYC who disagree with this administration enough that they wouldn't care how much evidence the government had.
It's also why the government pays so settlements in civil suits. In many cases it's cheaper to pay the sum of money the plaintiff will take to settle than it is to pay the attorneys to fight it.